It Didn’t Work (Buckley declares Iraq a failure)

National Review Online ^ | 02/24/06 | William F Buckley Jr

[CometBaby]

"I can tell you the main reason behind all our woes — it is America." The New York Times reporter is quoting the complaint of a clothing merchant in a Sunni stronghold in Iraq. "Everything that is going on between Sunni and Shiites, the troublemaker in the middle is America."

One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. The same edition of the paper quotes a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Reuel Marc Gerecht backed the American intervention. He now speaks of the bombing of the especially sacred Shiite mosque in Samara and what that has precipitated in the way of revenge. He concludes that “The bombing has completely demolished” what was being attempted — to bring Sunnis into the defense and interior ministries.

Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans. The great human reserves that call for civil life haven't proved strong enough. No doubt they are latently there, but they have not been able to contend against the ice men who move about in the shadows with bombs and grenades and pistols.

[hummingbird]

Like your post and Theophilus' post 101, too. Can't really add to them so I'll just say thanks to both of you for your analysis.

[churchillbuff]

On the question of whether we should have invaded Iraq, it's taken awhile for WF Buckley to get where John Paul II was from the very beginning. But JP II isn't called "the Great" for nothing.

[SteveMcKing]

It's the school yard, that's all. Not just FR, but the whole country.

This is recess, and the scrubs, jocks, nerds, dorks, brains, bullies, greasers and geeks must all go at each other's throats without cause or reason.

So I've learned to play alone and not care, really. Of course that attracts its own problems....

[RobbyS]

And let us not forget that historians USED to talk of the Civil War and Reconstruction as one thing. We had twenty years of violence beginning with Kansas-Nebraska and ending with the "settlement" of 1977. We remember the clash of armies between 1861 and 1865 and forget the banditry and unconventional war before and afterward.

[jobim]

Not to address the merits, or lack of, to Mr. Buckley's comments, but to speak a word in his defense as a bona fide American hero.

When a man has been responsible for funding and exposing through print and TV the major conservative thinkers in the 20th century, do we not owe him our respect?

When a man whose love for language and learning has done so much to promote truly civil intellectual discourse in our country, in contrast to the rapid coarsening of the culture we presently witness, do we not owe him our respect?

How can he consider himself a Conservative who directs personal insults at one on whose shoulders he stands?

[BubbaTheRocketScientist]

On the question of whether we should have invaded Iraq, it's taken awhile for WF Buckley to get where John Paul II was from the very beginning. But JP II isn't called "the Great" for nothing.

You know, I really didn't understand why JP II took that position at the time. I am having to seriously reevaluate whether he was right, and I wrong. And I will most certainly be listening much more attentively to what Pope Benedict XVI has to say about world affairs in the coming years.

[Old Professer]

When all is writ, in proper script, the critic sate awaits his fate.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Opponents of the invasion warned in advance that there would be a civil war. Many freepers laughed or derided that warning.

Who? Not me. Of course, I always figured there could be a civil war. Still could be. In fact, you could call what's been happening since 2003 "civil war". Semantics. It's just that I never saw what that was supposed to have to do with an argument for/against ousting Saddam Hussein. *shrug* Nor did I understand why opponents of the invasion like, apparently, you?, believed that merely warning "there could be a civil war" was a sufficient argument against invading and ousting Saddam Hussein.

Always sounded like one big non sequitur to me and still does. There could be a civil war ignited tomorrow, for all I know. Doesn't have a darn thing to do with whether it was appropriate to oust Saddam Hussein in 2003, which it was.

Was any of it -- the billion dollars a week of US tax money, the 2000-plus AMerican military deaths - necessary for the protection of American interests?

That's what our Congress decided in 2003, and I believed they were right. Anyway, it's history. It's a historical event. It happened. Do you get that? Yet you're still arguing about it for some reason. And so am I, which irritates me.

[The Worthless Miracle]

Do you understand that Iraqis are so segmented and have such a tribal mentality that it will be practically impossible to satisfy everyone?
The problem is, when they (Iraqis) are not satisfied, they elect to blow things up and kill people. I'm not saying it to bash the president by any means. I supported the war, but now, I think we need to get out. Leave them to their own devices. If they hoist up another Saddam, then we can do the same thing. The idea that "we break it we buy it" is only a rule because we choose to follow it. Only recently have states gone to war, defeated their enemy and then rebuilt their country. Maybe the name you can't seem to come up with should be.... Post war isolationism... or something...

[Dr. Frank fan]

Why is it taking so long for us to finish in Iraq, when sixty years ago we pretty much conquered half the planet in the same amount of time?

Because we are not trying to do the same sort of thing.

And note, we are not being asked to cut back on meat or nylons. So what's your problem?

[Old Professer]

Wouldn't matter, we have tofu and tanning parlors, now.

[BubbaTheRocketScientist]

Because we are not trying to do the same sort of thing.

Okay, next question, why aren't we trying to do the same sort of thing?

And note, we are not being asked to cut back on meat or nylons.

Good point. Perhaps if this war required more sacrifice on the home front, above and beyond a little TSA inconvenience at the airport, the political will would exist to achieve victory more quickly.

So what's your problem?

No problem, just asking some difficult questions. Is that a problem?

[Dr. Frank fan]

Do you understand that Iraqis are so segmented and have such a tribal mentality that it will be practically impossible to satisfy everyone?

When and where in human history has there been an instance of "everyone" being "satisifed"? That is not the case in the United States and you're right, it will not be the case in Iraq. Do you think you've made an interesting point?

The problem is, when they (Iraqis) are not satisfied, they elect to blow things up and kill people.

Who's "they"? All of them?

Again, this odd affliction surfacing - you can't see the nonviolent ones, you can only see the violent ones. And you assume that whoever's the most violent speaks for the rest of them.

Sad.

I supported the war, but now, I think we need to get out.

For what reason?

You seem to be concerned that there is violence in Iraq. Yet if we "get out" then I think you'd agree the violence would only intensity. So "getting out" as a solution to violence is like "gasoline" as a solution to fire. It literally makes no sense.

So, for what reason do you think we "need" to get out?

Is it perhaps just that you're weary of seeing Unpleasant TV News Stories?

Maybe the name you can't seem to come up with should be.... Post war isolationism... or something...

Yeah maybe, but that doesn't really quite capture the moral depravity, laziness, impatience, or selfishness of the position adequately, in my book....

[TShaunK]

I don't begin to know, but my take on it is that there are an awful lot of different forces who are doing what they can to keep democracy from happening there. Including Al Qaeda, substantial portions of most Arab countries it seems, Iran and even the Democrat Party of the US.

They should have known this. I was a strong backer of the war. But from troops being sent with no body armour to no WMD,along with everything else.This has been almost a complete disaster.

[Dr. Frank fan]

[wwii] Okay, next question, why aren't we trying to do the same sort of thing?

Basically because we don't need to. We are not faced at present with a megalomaniacal fascist expansionist dictator. Why? Because we already ousted him in a manner of about 3 weeks as I recall. See, we wrapped up the "World War 2" type job in weeks, and you're here 3 years later asking why it's "taking so long".

Now it is a different thing we are doing (and it's not even really a "war" per se): Iraq is now our protectorate, and we are trying to help bring a reasonably sane, consensual government to a people that has never seen one. That is just not the sort of thing we had to do when it came to Germany.

I can't believe you actually need it explained to you that World War 2 and Iraq are different though.

Perhaps if this war required more sacrifice on the home front, above and beyond a little TSA inconvenience at the airport, the political will would exist to achieve victory more quickly.

Most people who say this really, secretly, mean "perhaps if it required more sacrifice we'd give up sooner". I hope that's not what you mean.

My basic answer to you is that there is no overwhelming need to tighten our belts and make huge "sacrifices" for the sake of achieving victory more quickly (even if that's what would happen, which I don't believe). Is there? I don't understand the impatience. I really don't understand it. Can you explain it?

No problem, just asking some difficult questions. Is that a problem?

It's not the questions I have a problem with, it's the inexplicable and needless impatience which they betray.

[SteveMcKing]

Meh.

[LZ_Bayonet]

My image of Buckley, after reading this piece, is of him sitting, in need of a shave and with a moist mouth, in PJB's kitchen, in his pajamas, slowly reading the morning MSM and drinking a glass of what PJB has told him is "extra fiber", but is actually Pat's special, high fructose, high-calorie, low nutrient, kool-aid.

[BubbaTheRocketScientist]

we are trying to help bring a reasonably sane, consensual government to a people that has never seen one.

The same statement applies to WWII Japan.

Most people who say this really, secretly, mean "perhaps if it required more sacrifice we'd give up sooner".

No, not at all. I think we can all recognize that the road home goes through Iran and North Korea at a minimum, and we haven't even begun there yet.

it's the inexplicable and needless impatience

Needless perhaps, but not at all inexplicable. The idea of a "return to normalcy" is a part of our national character.

[The Worthless Miracle]

In a nutshell, I appreciate your points. I just think it is a lost cause. I may sound depraved, or heartless, but I don't really care about Iraqis, at least not enough to expend our resources indefinitely to do what's best for them.
Iraq is never going to be like the US. Let's leave it to the vaunted silent majority to take over as a voice of reason. The violent ones do speak for the rest of them - they always seem to. I must have missed the massive muslim protests against terrorism - (not in foreign countries - they mostly would not be allowed - but in America and Europe)By and large it seems idealistic and naive to think anything we do will change it. It wil be the same in 10 years no matter what we do...
If I thought it would work, I'd be all for it. I don't think it will.

[BubbaTheRocketScientist]

PJB's kitchen



mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...............